horse anatomy

[robalan]

The feet on that don't work at all.  The front hoofs pointing towards the back of the horse, flowing tail, and arched back make it look like the horse is in the middle of a gallop, but the back legs are planted firmly on the ground.  Also, due to the shading at the tops of the legs, this horse appears to have four right legs and no left legs   So the legs have gone from stubby but decent to confusing as hell.  As for the form, it looks more like a dog than a horse at the moment.  To fix that, you might start by making the neck and tail thicker.  I don't know what to say but check the references provided and fix it.

[EDIT] You posted the new update while I was typing.  The mane helps define it as a horse somewhat, but there's too much mane.  A horse's mane only goes to the nape of its neck, not halfway down its back. [/EDIT]
[EDIT2] Oh, and why is one of the back legs attached to the horse's stomach?  That's throwing this off as well.  The back hips should be paralell. [/EDIT2]

[Joseph]

how would I work with depth on the right legs?  I was thinking about just using the darker colors but I wasnt sure.
about the hooves, they're a bit longer than they should be and yes, I see what you mean on its placement, ill fix later today.

[Dogmeat]

The way it is right now it reminds me of an old cave drawing where the horses looked like this. Is this your intention or are you trying to go for a more modern style?

[AdamAtomic]

Dude, give me a break it looks almost exactly like it, except he took the front most leg and bent it, which obviously doesn't work if you've ever seen a horse walk.

There are zero similarities between the two pieces - everything is different.  The head position and shape, the leg positions, the pose, everything.

I think this is the first time I've ever seen this, but the 2 updates changed your image dramatically for the worse.  I'd return to your original, and just work on shading your form at first - the way you're shading the body and legs makes it very hard to read.  It looks like you shaded your horse based on a bunch of uniformly lit spheres or something, and then blew the specular out to the point where the REAL color of your horse makes up maybe 10% of the actual pixels used.  Horses are animals covered in SKIN - this means extreme shadows and highlights are rare at best.  I did a quick edit, trying to keep your same basic style, only pulling your highlights and shadows WAY back, they are far too extreme to be realistic or aesthetically pleasing in any way.



I did not change the silhouette very much at all - a few pixels on the head and stomach maybe, and I thickened the neck quite a bit.  Didn't touch the legs a bit though!

EDIT - on second glance, even my version has waaay too many highlights - but I think it should still help.

[baccaman21]

as a general rule of thumb with regards to anatomy and limb length you need to think (or bear in mind) the notion of the golden ratio - (Phi - [1.61]) - This applies to most things in the natural world.

with specific application to your image. (or should i say the updated one) - regarding the length of the legs. (I'm going all over the place with this so apologies)

When you consider anatomy - particularly mammilian anatomy - skeletally speaking we're all the same, but it horse or human... some bones may be fused (hips in humans for instance - or fingers in horses [becomes the hoof]) and some bones are elongated or squash dependant on the evolutionary process. If you look at a whale's skeleton - and compare it to a human skeleton (at it's most extreme example) you can find all the corresponding bones...

getting back to your image and the notion of PHI (1.61) - the golden ratio - this is a davinci thing so credit goes to him...

Hold your hand up infront of your face... check your fingers out - wiggle em a bit... now look at any finger - notice it's split into 3 sections... each section is called the 'phalange' - starting with the one with your nail on... and moving up towards the palm, each length is 1.61 bigger than the other... (generally speaking) - this contiues into the bones into the 'palm' - then up into the bones of the arm and so on... (this ia rough 'rule of thumb' - no pun intendend)

you need to apply this in your art - the horses legs are plain wrong... think in terms of Phi and measure them each and make a determined guess based on this principle... you will notice a marked improvement immediatly.

keep it up - and happy pixeling.

[baccaman21]

do a search for edward muybridge in google... you'll find loads of references for horses in motion....